31 Pa. Commw. 424 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1977
Opinion by
This is an appeal by William O. Roach (Appellant) from a decision and order of tbe Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which denied
The Board made the following findings of fact:
1. Claimant was last employed by Grimbels, at the South Hills Village Shopping Center, as a Department Manager, at $156 per week, from October 27, 1969 until November 3, 1973, his last day of work.
2. On November 3, 1973, the claimant was discharged because he took a set of Corning Ware from the store without having it checked prior to removal by an employee at the Service desk.
3. The employer’s rule, which the claimant knew, was that any employe who takes merchandise from the store must first check it out at the Service desk. This rule applies regardless of whether or not the merchandise belonged to Gimbels.-
4. The claimant contends that the Corning Ware was not Grimbels merchandise, but he also admitted knowing that even though it was not his employer’s property, it should have been checked out prior to removal.
Based on these findings, the Board concluded that Appellant’s conduct evidenced a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules and, as such, constituted willful misconduct in connection with his work.
The burden of proving willful misconduct is, of course, on the employer. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Tumolo, 25 Pa. Common
We have carefully reviewed the record, and we must conclude that each of the Board’s findings of fact is supported by substantial evidence. In particular, we note the following written admission by Appellant that was made a part of the record:
I, William Roach of 121 Belmont Ave., Canonsburg, Pa. who has been employed by Gimbles (sic) S. Hill Village since Oct. 27, 1969 Do Hereby make this statement.
To the best of my knowledge the only wrong doing I performed was I took 1 set of Corning Ware approx. 11.95 from Gimbles (sic) of S Hills store without paying for it. I admit this was wronge (sic).
William Roach signed 11-5-73.
The deliberate violation of an employer’s rules is included within the definition of willful misconduct. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Conv
Appellant’s brief accurately characterizes the rule:
The store regulation, which requires an employee to have goods stamped before removing the same from the store is a rule to protect the store and to prevent an employee from illegally removing the store’s merchandise.
The rule is designed to facilitate both the detection and deterrence of pilfering by employes. It is clear that to adopt Appellant’s urged distinction between merchandise which is the property of the store and that which is not would be to entirely nullify the intended prophylactic effect of the rule. What would remain would be no more than a rule against stealing from the employer stripped of its quintessential means of achieving its goal. This we will not do.
We affirm.
This opinion was prepared by Judge Kramer prior to his death and it is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
Order
And Now, this 12th day of August, 1977, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, at B-121282, denying benefits to William O. Roach is hereby affirmed.
The Board made no finding of fa ct regarding ownership of the Corning Ware set. However, given the basis of the Board’s disposition of the case, such is not necessary for our review.